Human Rights

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), has, in obedience to the order of reference of April 30, 2026, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Clause 4, pages 2 and 3:

(a)On page 2,

(i)replace lines 4 and 5 with the following:

“(b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz, the double Nazi Sig-Rune or a noose; or”,

(ii)add the following after line 14:

“(2.4) Everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous Peoples by condoning, denying or downplaying the Indian Residential Schools System

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”,

(iii)add the following after line 15:

“(1.11) The portion of subsection 319(3.1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1) or (2.4)”,

(iv)add the following after line 16:

“(1.3) Paragraph 319(3.1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews or hatred toward Indigenous Peoples.”, and

(v)replace line 30 with the following:

“tion (1), (2), (2.1), (2.2) or (2.4) or section 318, anything by”; and

(b)on page 3, replace line 3 with the following:

“(2), (2.1), (2.2) or (2.4) or section 318.”.

2.Clause 6, page 5: Replace line 18 with the following:

“(4) No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2)”.

Respectfully submitted,

Observations to the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (Bill C- 9)

Hate crimes are a serious and growing problem in Canada that have a profound impact on individuals and communities. Canada must protect vulnerable communities from hate, while also upholding the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (the committee) observes that several key elements of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places) are consistent with its previous recommendations, including those made in reports on Islamophobia and antisemitism in Canada.¹

For example, as outlined in those reports, the addition of a standalone hate crime offence to the Criminal Code sends an important signal about the seriousness of hate crimes, while also enabling better data collection and analysis that will inform future legislative and policy decisions. Similarly, the committee has previously called for legislation to address the display of symbols associated with hate groups, and to better protect access to religious institutions, places of worship, and community spaces. This bill fulfills those objectives.

The committee notes its past recommendations relating to non-criminal approaches to addressing hate, particularly with respect to the importance of education and training.

The following observations are grounded in the testimony heard by the committee during its study of Bill C-9, which included approximately 50 witnesses and over 40 written briefs. These observations are intended to reflect the evidence, concerns, perspectives, and areas of consensus and disagreement presented to the committee by witnesses appearing before it.

Statutory Review, Public Reporting, and Disaggregated Data

The committee heard recurring testimony from a broad range of witnesses that the long-term effectiveness, fairness, and public legitimacy of Bill C-9 may depend significantly on transparent implementation, meaningful public reporting, training and education, and ongoing parliamentary oversight.

Witnesses repeatedly emphasized the importance of improved disaggregated and intersectional data respecting charges, outcomes, enforcement patterns, and community impacts.

The committee therefore observes that implementation accountability, public reporting, and periodic parliamentary review are essential to the long-term operation and public legitimacy of the provisions of Bill C-9.

Several witnesses suggested future parliamentary review of the bill. The committee underscores that any future parliamentary study should examine the impact of this bill on hate crime trends, its interaction with existing Criminal Code provisions, as well as its overall effects on religious rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.

Specialized Hate-Crime Expertise, National Coordination, and Implementation Capacity

The committee heard recurring testimony from policing representatives, legal experts, community organizations, and witnesses from affected communities that the effective implementation of Bill C-9 may depend significantly upon specialized hate-crime expertise, dedicated investigative capacity, standardized training for law enforcement and prosecutors, community education, outreach, and coordinated approaches across Canadian jurisdictions.

The committee heard testimony that many police services across Canada presently possess uneven levels of hate-crime specialization, operational capacity, training, and institutional expertise. Witnesses repeatedly emphasized the importance of specialized hate-crime units, dedicated hate-crime investigators, enhanced prosecutorial training, community-informed policing practices, and improved national coordination in ensuring consistent enforcement, public confidence, accurate data collection, and effective protection for vulnerable communities.

The committee therefore observes that funding and strengthening specialized hate-crime expertise and implementation capacity across federal, provincial, and municipal institutions may be essential to the effective operation, fairness, and long-term public legitimacy of Bill C-9 and broader efforts to address hatred directed toward vulnerable communities in Canada.

Indigenous Sacred Sites, Burial Sites, and Residential School Denialism

The committee heard significant testimony from Indigenous witnesses that the current drafting of the bill may not fully reflect Indigenous understandings of sacred spaces, land-based spirituality, burial practices, and residential school-related harms.

The committee therefore observes that while Indigenous witnesses consistently framed these concerns not as opposition to the bill’s objectives, they are fundamental to recognition, inclusion, community safety, and equal protection within the bill’s existing framework.

The committee notes that section 423.3 of the Criminal Code provides protections against intimidation intended to impede access to certain locations, including places of worship, community institutions used by identifiable groups, and cemeteries.

The committee recognizes that many Indigenous Peoples maintain cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, and sacred sites that are of profound significance to their communities and identities. The committee further recognizes the unique importance of unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian Residential Schools, which continue to be places of remembrance, mourning, healing, and truth-telling for Survivors, families, and communities.

The committee encourages the Government of Canada to consider whether the protections afforded under section 423.3 should be expanded to expressly include Indigenous religious and cultural sites, as well as unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian Residential Schools, so that these locations receive protections comparable to those afforded to other protected sites under the Criminal Code.

The committee heard concerning testimony about the lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples as part of this bill. The committee urges the government to consult Indigenous peoples about measures to address hate crimes.

Hate Symbols, Drafting Precision, and Cultural Literacy

The committee heard differing testimony respecting the proposed hate-symbol provisions, including testimony relating to critical absences, drafting precision, interpretation, operational enforceability, and cultural literacy. Witnesses expressed concern that certain wording may create uncertainty where symbols carry multiple religious, cultural, linguistic, political, or historical meanings, which may not be easily recognizable by front line law enforcement.

The committee therefore observes that many witnesses considered the importance of implementation guidance, prosecutorial screening, enhanced law enforcement training, and cultural literacy to be essential to the practical operation and public confidence associated with the proposed hate-symbol provisions.

The committee observes that hate symbols evolve over time and highlights the recommendation from several witnesses to establish an advisory body or other mechanism to evaluate hate symbols on an ongoing basis and recommend changes as needed.

Protest Rights, Access Offences, and Public Confidence

The committee heard substantial testimony concerning the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between unlawful intimidation and constitutionally protected protest activity. Witnesses emphasized that public confidence in the proposed access and obstruction offences may depend significantly on implementation guidance, training, and consistent enforcement practices.

The committee therefore observes that ensuring that the distinction between unlawful intimidation and lawful protest remains fundamental to the clear, objective, and consistent application of this legislation in practice.

The committee further observes that many witnesses considered implementation guidance, police training, prosecutorial discretion, and transparent accountability mechanisms to be essential in ensuring public confidence in the operation of these provisions.

Religious Expression, Criminal Thresholds, and Public Understanding

The committee heard differing testimony respecting the repeal of the former “good faith religious opinion” defence. The committee also heard repeated testimony from legal experts, policing representatives, equality-seeking organizations, and government officials that the proposed offences continue to require a high threshold involving willful promotion of hatred and do not criminalize lawful religious belief, worship, sermons, theological discourse, or good-faith expression that does not meet that significant legal threshold. Witnesses further emphasized the importance of continued public explanation and legal education respecting the operation of Canadian hate-propaganda law.

The committee further observes that continued public communication, legal education, and clear government explanation respecting the distinction between lawful religious expression and criminal hate propaganda is essential.

Community Protection, Equality, and Uneven Enforcement Risk

The committee repeatedly heard testimony that many communities view Bill C-9 as both an important protective measure against hate and a potential source of uneven or discriminatory enforcement. Witnesses emphasized that the long-term legitimacy of the bill may depend significantly on whether implementation is experienced by affected communities as fair, transparent, accountable, and equitable in practice.

The committee therefore observes that fairness, transparency, accountability, and equitable implementation are crucial to the long-term legitimacy and public confidence associated with Bill C-9.

[1]Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (RIDR), Combatting Hate: Islamophobia and Its Impact on Muslims in Canada, November 2023; RIDR, Standing United Against Antisemitism: Protecting Communities and Strengthening Canadian Democracy, April 2026.